I see, so now Uber, who you basically just said yourself is *saving people from starvation and death* is a husband who beats his wife?

So what you are saying is that the wife that is being abused is actually unable to survive without the husband, is that what you are implying? So is it the economy that makes the wife unable to survive or is that only something that exists in her (your) head?

You are now comparing people, who are driving for Uber to wives that take a beating but cannot leave their husbands because *they believe* they cannot survive in the world without the husband?

You see, I wouldn't make claims similar to yours, so I wouldn't put myself in such a precarious position in a conversation.

I think that people driving for Uber are not on the brink of starvation and hunger death, they have other choices, *you* implied that they are starving and cannot survive without Uber.

I think that they are making a conscious decision to drive for Uber because it works for them better, maybe it gives them extra income, maybe it gives them the flexibility, maybe they like not going to an office and like being treated as independent adults who are perfectly capable of making their own life choices.

You, on the other hand, are implying all sorts of things about these people that I think cannot stand to any type of scrutiny. These are not starving people, they are driving cars, they wear clothes and they have mobile phones and they are able to afford all of that and still they can eat something (or they wouldn't be driving).

You should stop attacking companies simply because you think they are not providing the type of work conditions that you expect them to provide, instead maybe (if you think you can do it better) you should run a competitor to Uber or to WalMart or to McDonalds or to Apple or to whatever and see if you can do better and if you can provide those jobs under the conditions that you are promoting here.

So what you are saying, rsilvergun, is that Uber is *saving people from starvation and death*. Seems to me that attacking a company that provides that option to people without any other options is not a good economic move.

This has nothing to do with 'deserving', the point is that nobody at all is forcing anybody to drive for Uber.

I run a company of my own, at times I made not simply less than minimum wage would be, but in a number of cases I was paying people who work for me out of pocket, as in I was losing money, not making it. *Nobody* forced me to do this, it's a private personal decision.

the issue that the federal government is meddling with stupid shit that is not within its charter.

- correct.

guarantee that I can find a job

- also not within their authority, because to *guarantee* a job to person A would mean to guarantee that other people have to subsidise that job. It's direct transfer from one person to another. OTOH government should step aside and *not diminish your chances* of finding a job by destroying the economy, that would be nice.

No, I pay for my insurance individually but yes, government health care is oppression, not only 'in my mind', it is oppression objectively. It is oppression of an individual, who is forced to participate in it through taxation and who has no choice to opt out.

It depends on how the DNC election turns out. Keith Ellison has the baggage about his Farrakhan ties and past statements about Judaism, but Bernie can still put up a less tainted Progressive candidate to head the party: it's not like the party is short of them.

It's no longer a Clinton dominated party: the real battle would be b/w the Bernie/Warren Progressives vs the Rust Belt Centrists like Tim Ryan. This will be an easy battle for the former to win, since the Dems are a bi-coastal party of New England (Bernie/Warren's turf), New York to DC corridor, and the Left Coast. They ain't people left to reward the states that abandoned them - states like MI, WI or PA. Martin O'Malley is not likely to win, Dean has dropped out, so the race remains right now b/w Ellison and Jamie Harrison - the head of the party in a deep red state that's not gonna flip - SC.

But GP is right. It was conventional wisdom that Bernie couldn't win if he was the nominee, being the socialist that he is. But it was also conventional wisdom that Trump couldn't win. In reality, it's been 25 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, so terms like socialist or communist do not have the negative connotations to people that they had even during the Gorby era. He shocked Clinton in battleground states like MI, and would have kept the blue wall intact. In fact, given how Trump had slipped vs Cruz in red states, had Bernie been the candidate, given how well he did against Clinton in many of them, he might even have flipped some states like UT

you seem to be implying that, to compete with automation, humans should be willing to be treated like dirt.

- no, I am implying that the cost of litigation is a consideration for any employer *regardless of the merits*. Anybody can sue anybody else if there is merit, that's one thing, however the labour laws make it too easy for an employee to sue an employer for things like 'wrongful termination' and that's a garbage claim. Same with 'human rights' related lawsuits, there is no such thing as a 'human right to work', human rights are protections against government oppression, not entitlements for the employees and obligations upon the employers, yet that's exactly what 'human rights' lawsuits against employers are: they didn't do something the government puts an obligation on them to do, to satisfy an entitlement that the government deems an employee is supposed to receive from an employer.

Being treated like dirt is one thing, and nobody has to work for an employer who treats people like dirt, being provided government entitlements because an employee and employer are working together is something else, that's one of the 3 main reasons why I outsource most of my development to a different country.

- I completely disagree, individual freedom is more relevant and more important than individual life, i.e., an individual should be able to do with his or her life as he or she pleases, but they should not get any subsidies from anybody based on the oppression of any government apparatus.

This is not about GDP, this is not about society, this is about individual freedoms and I am 100% against anybody being forced to subsidise anybody else, under those conditions buying health insurance is a decision that would be taken much more seriously than if everybody was oppressed by the state and forced to pay into it.

As the exit polls showed, people lied to the pollsters. The exit polls seemed to indicate that Clinton would win, but it was the vote counting from the various states, particularly the battleground ones, that ultimately demonstrated otherwise. The people who voted for Trump did like him, but were too pissed off at the media to give a shit about them. The ones who disliked both mainly sat out the election: that is why Clinton underperformed among groups that her campaign expected her to win w/ larger margins.

Actually, the annoying part is/. making it clickbait for much of its traffic. I generally come here hoping to read about the latest news about things like Apple, Android, Windows, IPv6, Offshoring, et al. Instead, the bulk of it was pure politics, not even tech related politics, which I'd still understand. But stuff about the latest scandal about either Trump or Clinton

I really hope to read less of that. Not b'cos of anything I think or feel about our new president elect, but rather, b'cos I come here to discuss the above topics, rather than engage in flame throwing w/ people who I won't agree w/ and who won't agree w/ me